Takes: Presidential Debates

Debates are of mixed value in the process of picking a President. While they do give the country a sustained look at the candidates, debates—and the media’s interpretations of them afterward—tend to reward wrong, or irrelevant, qualifications. A gaffe can decide the Presidency. The talents called forth—being quick on one’s feet, memorizing the better responses, hiring the better writer of one-liners—have little to do with what we need in a President. The media tend to turn the things into sports events—stressing who won or who threw the most potent punch (which is often the best one-liner). The debates are measured by their entertainment value. The personality traits that come through and the public’s reaction to those traits do offer something of a guide to how a candidate would hold up as President over time—but only a shaky one, and sometimes a misleading one…. But, for better or for worse, these debates will probably decide the election—if it hasn’t already been decided.

—Elizabeth Drew, writing about Clinton and Bush in “High Noon,” October 19, 1992.

Illustration by Girard Nicolas.

Joshua Rothman is The New Yorker’s archive editor. He is also a frequent contributor to newyorker.com, where he writes about books and ideas.